About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
week. this is an offensive team that the defense department would use to defend the nation if it were attacked in cyber space. joining me now from washington to discuss the developing battle ground david sanger of the "new york times." welcome. >> great to be back with you. >> tell me why security experts are saying this has become if not our biggest national security threat th one erging wi the most concern for them. >> well it's certainly our newest and it may be among the urge else as it's an issue of consider debate. it's urgent because there are cyber attacks on the united states, mostly on u.s. corporations that take place every single day. but these are mostly attacks to sweep up vast amounts of intellectual property. whether it's an automobile design, the design of a gas pipene, could be any kind of commercial information that chinese or other companies might find useful. that isn't really at the center of the biggest national security concern. the biggest national security concern is what happens if a foreign power or a foreign hacker, a non-state actor manages to get into cr
to the united states to the now former minister of the defense ahead barack said this president and this administration has done more to insure israel's qualitative military edge, intel cooperation has strengthened. there's been a lot of good cooperation meeting the iranian challenge but on that public level there has been difficulty obviously there's syria, iran, and the white house is setting low expectations with the regard to the palestinian israeli peace process. >> rose: low expectations? >> low expectations on that front. >> rose: do you see it the same way? >> it's the intersection of politics and policy. barack obama has the most dysfunctional relationship with an israeli prime minister as any american president has had in the history of the u.s./israeli relations. it goes beyond begin and carter and bush 41 and the reality is that no american president for political reasons and policy reasons can afford to have this sort of relationship. a lot of it rests on netanyahu and his first incarnation. even clinton, a guy who was prepared to cut him all kinds of breaks was ann
it would trigger american involvement because america could be his last line of defense and last protection against something mu worse. >> i han't seen any hard evidence that they've been used. there have been some reports, and if they were used it seems to have been on an extremely small scale. but again, i think there's no hard evidence. might they be used? sure, desperate leaders might do desperate things if they felt there was no alternative. i don't think there's anything we can do to prevent their use, other than to threaten, as we have, if they were to be used it would cross a-- quote, unquote-- red line and have dire consequences. the real question is if they are used on any significant sale what do w d the from what i can tell, there are large stocks disbursed on any number of missiles and arcraft so in order to prevent continued use you'd really have to take out an enormous chunk of the syrian military. that's a euphemism for going to war. it's an extraordinarily difficult scenario. one question, charlie, which i don't have an answer to is if the syrians were to use chemical weapo
to iraq? >> i think yes, it probably would have been. i remember a very senior defense department official, douglasfi feif, stand, in the garden of the american embassy in afghanistan within-- i dare say three or four months of thef overthrow of the taliban, so we're talk early 2002. >> and asked him what he envisaged being the maximumsa american troop strength required there afghanistan, and he said 5,000. well, we knownd now-- michael cn correct me-- it went up to whatt michael, was it, 130,000 at one point? in any case, it reached, if you will, soaf levels. but much too late.af by the time that the surge in iraq, in afghanistan came, the situation was so bad, that retrieving it was also of always going to be a very, very uphill struggle. so, yes, i think the disio invade iraq, which withdrew so much in terms of manpower and resources from afghanistan, did have a very deleterious effect a on the american enterprise inm afghanistan. >> rose: john, i have to saypr good-bye to you because i'm going to lose the satellite and don't want to cut you in midsentence or me. it's wonderful stee you
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)